Print

Print


> The subfields I list above can be used to get the other record.

Yes. But I (and any usual patrons) want to get the other _resource_.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Oct 14, 2014, at 7:09 PM, "J. McRee Elrod" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Karen said:
> 
>> Mac, linking fields, as in text, are not machine-actionable links
> 
> We use them that way.  They are called "linking fields" after all.  
> Perhaps your IT person is not as clever as ours?  Fields 773 and 774
> both contain $u standard report number, $w record control number, $x
> IISSN, $y CODEN, and $z ISBN.
> 
> Unless we mean something differing by "linking" I do not understand
> your comment.  The subfields I list above can be used to get the other
> record.
> 
> UKMARC field 248 is *in* the record for the larger resource, so no
> linking is needed.  Field 248, unlike other 24X. may contain full
> data, not just title.  The data is there already.  (We produce UKMARC
> records for a British client.)  I wish the British had held out for
> 248 in MARC21.   It is less complex then 774 to manipulate.
> 
> I hope the creators of Bibframe will look at UKMARC as well as MARC21.
> 
> 
>   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________